If Sam wanted back in then why didn't he buy the £2m shares

Which were on offer in May ?

He had the same chance as the rest of the shareholders.

Lets face it, that £2m would have been a massive help to us - and virtually none of the shareholders were prepared to back the club.
Yes we need more and the Ledley fiasco hasn't helped, but we could be out of the embargo with £2m.

Everyone is waiting for the Malaysians to commit more but existing shareholders haven't helped when they had the chance.

Perhaps the shares should be put up for sale again -and non-shareholders given the opportunity to have some ?

We need to raise money, and new shares would be better than MORE loans which is what is happening at the moment.

The only alternative is player sales - and the problem we now have is the offers will be reduced as other clubs perceive us as being in deep crap and won't pay full whack - I'd bet Ipswich's valuation of Chopra is now less than what we owe to S.A.M. and Forest's offer for Whitt i sless than what Burnley were prepared to pay.

Another question about Sam is where is he getting this £12 million he said he would invest if he was allowed back on board? Personally, I don't think he's got it and it's a ploy to get back in

And how would 2 million pounds worth of shares get him back in, what would that enable him to do?

And how would 2 million pounds worth of shares get him back in, what would that enable him to do?

Simple.
It would give him enough of a shareholding to get a place on the board - just like it has for Isaacs.

Or is that too conventional ?

No it wouldn't, Michael Isaac was offered that as an incentive to hold off on the debt, but at 20% interest I'd be happy to hold off as well.
Also I think I'm right in saying whilst he's been given a seat, it's as a non executive director with no voting rights.

No it wouldn't, Michael Isaac was offered that as an incentive to hold off on the debt, but at 20% interest I'd be happy to hold off as well.
Also I think I'm right in saying whilst he's been given a seat, it's as a non executive director with no voting rights.

Michael Isaac`s debt is now interest free (it was last at the 20% above bank base rates in 2008 , was at 3% above base in 2009 , and has been interest free since May this year).

So the Directorship was the incentive to drop the interest, or was there a share swap ?

No it wouldn't, Michael Isaac was offered that as an incentive to hold off on the debt, but at 20% interest I'd be happy to hold off as well.
Also I think I'm right in saying whilst he's been given a seat, it's as a non executive director with no voting rights.

Isaac's debt can be turned into shares. So when the club take this on he'll have roughly 10% of the shares.

If Sam had bought the £2m of shares on offer (£1.7m left over), he would have had 12-15% (I'm on holiday so don't have the correct figure to hand), bearing in mind he already has a significant shareholding.

The opportunity was there for ALL shareholders. it looks to me at the moment that the only people willing to put in, at any significant amount are the Malaysians. So why should we expect that from them, or complain if we sell players in the coming weeks ?

By he way Gwyn, this isn't meant particularly as a dig at Sam - I think we nee to keep an open mind, although I am wary of his motives, (the guy is after all owed a lot of money and naturally would like some back) and the 'offer' which was publicised didn't really give the club ANY new cash, all the other major shareholders are in the same boat. almost as soon as TG came on board it seems everyone else has said, 'thank God for that, I can step back now'. But surely this isn't what TG and VT wanted and expected ?

And how would 2 million pounds worth of shares get him back in, what would that enable him to do?

Correct Gwyn, it would give him no say whats so ever.

Maybe Sam would not want to be second fiddle.

He is a leader not a follower.

maybe just maybe sam hasent got two million let alone 12

Just holding off the ten million pounds at the end of the year would be a little help.

Just holding off the ten million pounds at the end of the year would be a little help.

the malaysians were always aware of the need to pay langston their ten million by the end of december and as far as im aware that is part of their game plan to ultimatley own the club lock stock and barrel having paid out 30 million over two years

Maybe Sam would not want to be second fiddle.

He is a leader not a follower.

Thats more like it Carl.

If £2m of shares can get Michael Isaacs onto the board then why not Sam, he'd also have a bigger shareholding than Whiteley and not be that far behind Guy, especially as he's also a major creditor.

- It wouldn't be enough for Sam
- Could he work with the others ? Not before.


Was the question ever asked ?

£2m would have bought around 11% of CCFC. If Sam Hammam wished to serve on the Board of Directors at CCFC he would had to put himself forward for election.

He would have had 11% of the vote, but the Malaysians alone could have blocked his appointment with their 30%

So in affect Sam would have invested £2m and got nothing back in return, apart from shares which in all likelyhood will be worth a lot less in a few years time.

£2m would have bought around 11% of CCFC. If Sam Hammam wished to serve on the Board of Directors at CCFC he would had to put himself forward for election.

He would have had 11% of the vote, but the Malaysians alone could have blocked his appointment with their 30%

So in affect Sam would have invested £2m and got nothing back in return, apart from shares which in all likelyhood will be worth a lot less in a few years time.

Why would they block his appointment though Tony ? Are you saying they don't want him on-board. If so then surely his idea of coming on board in return for deferral of some of the £10m or whatever is doomed as well ? Also, even if the directors of the club wouldn't do a deal (again don't forget try have done a similar one with Isaacs, is Sam different ?), it would certainly have strengthened Sam's hand in trying to get on-board.

Did any of the lads who met with Sam ask him this ? if so, his response would be interesting.

By the way, he's already got 2% ish of the shares - have you included that ? Just as a point of interest, it wouldnt make a huge difference, as I haven't done the sums.

In fact if Sam were to offer to buy £12m of shares, if he has got that to invest, then that certainly would get him a big say in the running ! There are more shares on top of these allotted but not issued yet -enough to take a significant stake.


I'm not stirring, but I'm still trying to make sense of the whole thing.

£2m would have bought around 11% of CCFC. If Sam Hammam wished to serve on the Board of Directors at CCFC he would had to put himself forward for election.

He would have had 11% of the vote, but the Malaysians alone could have blocked his appointment with their 30%

So in affect Sam would have invested £2m and got nothing back in return, apart from shares which in all likelyhood will be worth a lot less in a few years time.

Why would they block his appointment though Tony ? Are you saying they don't want him on-board. If so then surely his idea of coming on board in return for deferral of some of the £10m or whatever is doomed as well ? Also, even if the directors of the club wouldn't do a deal (again don't forget try have done a similar one with Isaacs, is Sam different ?), it would certainly have strengthened Sam's hand in trying to get on-board.

Did any of the lads who met with Sam ask him this ? if so, his response would be interesting.

By the way, he's already got 2% ish of the shares - have you included that ? Just as a point of interest, it wouldnt make a huge difference, as I haven't done the sums.

In fact if Sam were to offer to buy £12m of shares, if he has got that to invest, then that certainly would get him a big say in the running ! There are more shares on top of these allotted but not issued yet -enough to take a significant stake.


I'm not stirring, but I'm still trying to make sense of the whole thing.

That's my thinking at the moment too. He would have been in a much better position to negotiate a possible return having already put £2m into the club surely